Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, RJ and Fish. Much appreciated.

[rjpalmer]

When I asked - a few times - whether Iremonger had been given the correct wedding certificate to examine, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever got a straight answer. Funny that.

An interesting observation, Sam; thanks for posting it. These sorts of inadvertent screw-ups happen more often then one might imagine. I remember my old company doing something similar in regards to a highly important technical test. It later transpired that a low level clerk had mailed in the wrong sample and the results were disastrous and it took a very long time to sort it all out.


I have no pony in the race, but I certainly sympathize with your logic, and that of Fisherman. If one were to randomly take two guys named, say, "Horace Bleekerman," and then compared their handwriting, there would be utterly no reason to suppose their signatures would look even remotely similar. Certainly not as similar as the two samples you posted. In fact, they would probably be so obviously different that there could be no room for doubt or debate.

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
What he say about the original three sigs..did he think they matched with each other too?

Abby, when I said I do not want to get embroiled in all of this again, I meant it. But I´ll make an exception for you. Of course!

Back in the day, what I did was to take a look at the two signatures Gareth posted earlier, and I thought: "But they are the same - they must have been written by the same hand, and consequently, Toppy must be the witness!"

And then I thought: "Wait a minute! Whenever I say something out here about things, I am always met by the same kneejerk reaction, asking who I am to comment on things medical, psychological, motorical, biological...whatever I say, no matter how much value it potentially has, there is always somebody who points out to me that I am not an expert in these fields and so my view needs to be rated somewhere between laughable and worthless."

Therefore, I came up with the idea to ask somebody who WAS an authority and expert - Frank Leander. And all I wanted to hear was whether he also thought that the two signatures were very much alike. Little did I know - naive old me - that I would be raked over the coals for not showing Leander all three signatures. But I was. Forwards and backwards. And sideways.

Today, I have the exact same stance as I did then: If two signatures are a match, and Frank Leander thought they were, then I fail to see how two OTHER signatures will take away from that impression. As far as I am concerned, the salient matter is that Leander, a man who has lectured on these things, who has spent a professional lifelong carreer working with them and who has a very good reputation around the world said that as far as he could tell, the two signatures were very much alike, and he added that he would be surprised if they had different originators plus he expected any forthcoming evidence to confirm his view.

That was what I asked about, that was what he answered and that was the outcome of my question about the two signatures I thought were very close - he agreed.

And that is all I have to say about it, Abby, believe me. If you have forgotten what went down back in the day, I advise you to look it up and see for yourself.

[Ben]

Never mind Sue Iremonger. Use your eyes.

Never mind the professional brain surgeon. Hand ME the scalpel!

I’m afraid we’re straying into fantasy - as well as unusual hostility, for some reason - if we’re now claiming that the entirely impartial and objective Sue Iremonger was being “dishonest” in her assessment that Toppy’s signature did not match those on the witness statement.

If you’re seriously in need of a “straight answer” to the question of whether or not an expert of such standing and experience accidentally compared Hutchinson’s signatures to that of a modern-day registrar, you may rest assured that it is emphatically and very obviously NO.

To suggest an expert document examiner goofed to such an impossibly catastrophic extent is to scrape the barrel very seriously, in my view.

Anyway, let’s agree to disagree and move on.

[DJA]

Glad it was of interest, Abby!

You are correct, Dave. I’d forgotten that detail. She believed the signature was scrawled by Badham in “conscious immitation” of the other two.

Real question is "who changed the public house to the Queen's Head without initialing it?"

[DJA]

Never mind Sue Iremonger. Use your eyes.

[ATTACH]18783[/ATTACH]

You see, I once made the bold pronouncement that Toppy's marriage certificate signature didn't match the 1888 witness statement, but that was because I'd ordered the wrong certificate, which was probably filled in and signed by the registrar, not Topping himself. The original certificate was subsequently posted (can't remember by whom - but thanks again), and I had to publicly eat humble pie because it was bloody obvious to me that Topping's wedding cert signature did indeed match the 1888 witness statement - as any HONEST person will be able to tell.

When I asked - a few times - whether Iremonger had been given the correct wedding certificate to examine, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever got a straight answer. Funny that.

Those two signatures are very,very different.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, and what's more, we know what he looked like and how he signed his name, if only you'd take your head out of the sand.

what the hells wrong with you today?

[Sam Flynn]

Anyway, I hope the above illustrates at least reasonably well how centrally located Hutchinson would have been in relation to the murder sites.

Indeed, and what's more, we know what he looked like and how he signed his name, if only you'd take your head out of the sand.

[Sam Flynn]

Never mind Sue Iremonger. Use your eyes.



You see, I once made the bold pronouncement that Toppy's marriage certificate signature didn't match the 1888 witness statement, but that was because I'd ordered the wrong certificate, which was probably filled in and signed by the registrar, not Topping himself. The original certificate was subsequently posted (can't remember by whom - but thanks again), and I had to publicly eat humble pie because it was bloody obvious to me that Topping's wedding cert signature did indeed match the 1888 witness statement - as any HONEST person will be able to tell.

When I asked - a few times - whether Iremonger had been given the correct wedding certificate to examine, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever got a straight answer. Funny that.

[Abby Normal]

as I said, which basically makes trying to make any comparison to toppys sig worthless.

and this coming from someone who eventhough thinks Aussie George is best bet for hutch, dosnt care if the real hutch was toppy, as many many serial killers have apparent "normal" family lives, before, during and or after there killing sprees.

[Ben]

Glad it was of interest, Abby!

You are correct, Dave. I’d forgotten that detail. She believed the signature was scrawled by Badham in “conscious immitation” of the other two.

[DJA]

Sue Iremonger is also of the opinion that the first "Hutchinson signature" was written by Badham.

[Abby Normal]

I would also like to sign off from this vexed Top-ic by reminding all interested parties that renowned expert Sue Iremonger is, to date, the only document examiner to have compared all three original statement signatures, and presented her findings at the 1993 World Association of Document Examiners conference.

She concluded that while all three statement signatures were written by the same hand, whoever signed them was not the signatory on Toppy’s 1898 marriage certificate.

But this has been discussed ad nauseam on a great many threads.

Changing the topic entirely, I thought I’d share a photo I took from the window of my lodging house on Goulston Street a couple of weeks ago.

Just to clarify my perspective, I’m looking in a roughly north-easterly direction from the southern end of Goulston Street.

- The Victoria Home was located where the white building to the left of the high-rise block of flats now stands.

- To the left of this, behind some trees can be discerned the spire of Christchurch Spitalfields, which still stands on Commercial Street, roughly facing the entrance to Dorset Street.

- Follow the horizon to the right and you’ll see the chimney of the old Truman Brewery, right behind the Hanbury Street murder location.

- Alice McKenzie was murdered in Castle Alley, the former site of which is a stone’s throw from my position, nestled somewhere behind the large brown building in the immediate foreground.

- If I lobbed another stone to my immediate left, I would have hit the entrance to the former Wentworth Model Dwellings, where Eddowes’ apron remnant was jettisoned.

- To the immediate right of the high-rise block are two yellow cranes, and the one on the left is situated roughly where Martha Tabram was found murdered 130 years ago.

Anyway, I hope the above illustrates at least reasonably well how centrally located Hutchinson would have been in relation to the murder sites.

All the best,
Ben

right smack in the middle. thanks for posting that pic!

[Ben]

I would also like to sign off from this vexed Top-ic by reminding all interested parties that renowned expert Sue Iremonger is, to date, the only document examiner to have compared all three original statement signatures, and presented her findings at the 1993 World Association of Document Examiners conference.

She concluded that while all three statement signatures were written by the same hand, whoever signed them was not the signatory on Toppy’s 1898 marriage certificate.

But this has been discussed ad nauseam on a great many threads.

Changing the topic entirely, I thought I’d share a photo I took from the window of my lodging house on Goulston Street a couple of weeks ago.

Just to clarify my perspective, I’m looking in a roughly north-easterly direction from the southern end of Goulston Street.

- The Victoria Home was located where the white building to the left of the high-rise block of flats now stands.

- To the left of this, behind some trees can be discerned the spire of Christchurch Spitalfields, which still stands on Commercial Street, roughly facing the entrance to Dorset Street.

- Follow the horizon to the right and you’ll see the chimney of the old Truman Brewery, right behind the Hanbury Street murder location.

- Alice McKenzie was murdered in Castle Alley, the former site of which is a stone’s throw from my position, nestled somewhere behind the large brown building in the immediate foreground.

- If I lobbed another stone to my immediate left, I would have hit the entrance to the former Wentworth Model Dwellings, where Eddowes’ apron remnant was jettisoned.

- To the immediate right of the high-rise block are two yellow cranes, and the one on the left is situated roughly where Martha Tabram was found murdered 130 years ago.

Anyway, I hope the above illustrates at least reasonably well how centrally located Hutchinson would have been in relation to the murder sites.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Avoiding, as best as I can, to poke MY arse in this business, it needs to be said that Swedens foremost criminal specialist on signatures, Frank Leander, disagreed with you, Abby. And he had a lifetime of doing these comparisons behind him when he concluded that he would be surprised if the signatures were not from the same man, and added that he expected any forthcoming new evidence to further seal the deal.

That is all I am going to say about it this time over, since Leanders garcious and helpful contribution was not received in a very balanced manner when it arrived some years ago.
That, however, does not change what he said.

Over and out.

Thanks fish
What he say about the original three sigs..did he think they matched with each other too?